People v.

Bumanglag
No. 5318, December 23, 1909
Torres, J. / KMD

SUBJECT MATTER: Justifying Circumstances

CASE SUMMARY:

In this case, Bumanglang and his companion, one of which was Bundoc (appellant in this case), wanted to
find out who stole Bulanglag’s Palay. When Guillermo showed up to get the palay, Bulanglang and his
companion assaulted him with sticks and sharp weapons that caused Guillermo’s death. Bulanglang and
companion were charged with homicide and a penalty of reclusion temporal. Among the accused, only
Bondoc appealed. Considering that he lost his reason upon seeing Guillermo took away the palay
(mitigating circumstance), Bundoc’s penalty was lowered by one degree.

DOCTRINES:
Unless the accused was first unlawfully attacked, it is not proper to admit the plea of self-defense and
exempt him from criminal responsibility; it is necessary, in order that such defense shall be effective, that
the same shall be proven as well as the crime charged

The presence of the mitigating circumstance specified in article 9, paragraph 7, and that especially
established by article 11 of the Penal Code, and the absence of aggravating circumstances which might
neutralize the former, requires the imposition of the penalty immediately inferior to that prescribed by law
and in the properly corresponding grade, considering the number and character of the circumstances, all
in accordance with article 81, rule 5, of said code. 


FACTS:
 On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag, a resident of the pueblo of San Nicolas,
Province of Ilocos Norte, noticed that he is missing 40 bundles of palay that were kept in his
granary.
 He looked for the lost palay the next morning and found them in an enclosed sugarcane field, 100
meters away from his granary.
 That night, he and his companions (Gregorio, Bundoc, Antonio Ribao and Saturnino Tumamao)
waited near the field to find out who would return to get the missing palay.
 A man of large stature, Guillermo Ribis, a known thief and robber in the place, came and
attempted to carry the palay away with him.
 However, Bumanglang, Bundoc, and Ribao assaulted the presumed thief with bamboo sticks and
cutting and stabbing weapons.
 Ribis fell down and died instantaneously.
 Trial Court charged them with crime of homicide and a penalty of 14 years 8 months and 1 ay of
reclusion temporal with the accessories, and indemnity of Php 1000 to the heirs.
 Only Gregorio Bundoc appealed, the rest started to serve their sentence.
 Bundoc pleaded not guilty and that he assaulted and killed the deceased in order to defend
himself from an attack made by the former with a bolo.
ISSUE/S:
1) WON the appellant acted in defense of property and should extinguish the crime
charged. (NO)
2) WON the appellant acted in self-defense prior to an unlawful aggression. (NO)

HOLDING:

1. No, it is only a mitigating circumstance which will lower the penalty. Mitigating circumstance
No. 7 of Art 9 of Penal Code should be taken into account because the defendant acted with loss
of reason and self-control on seeing that Ribis was taking material possession of the palsy seized
and hidden by him the previous night thus prejudicing the respondents who labored to provide
themselves and their families with subsistence.

Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person of one entrusted with said property (People v. Apolinar). 
The bolo worn
by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist. It cannot be concluded that the
deceased even intended to assault his murderers with his bolo either before he was attacked by
them or during the fight. Without unlawful aggression and the other requisites which would
exempt the accused from criminal responsibility, the appellant and his two companions assaulted
Ribis with sticks and cutting and stabbing arms, inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds,
and therefore, the said accused is guilty of the crime of homicide as co-principal by direct
participation, fully convicted, together with his codefendants who are already serving their
sentence. 


2. No, unless the accused was first unlawfully attacked, it is not proper to admit the plea of self-
defense and exempt him from criminal responsibility. It is necessary, in order that such defines
shall be effective, that the same shall be proven as well as the crime charged.
Based on the codefendants, during the fight with the deceased Ribis, they only beat the
latter with sticks, because he unsheathed the bolo he carried but according to the health officer
and municipal president of Laoag, the bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging
from his waist. Therefore it cannot be concluded that the deceased even intended to assault his
murderers, it is not reasonable to believe that, before falling to the ground in a dying condition he
succeeded in sheathing his bolo. Also, wounds inflicted on the deceased were mortal and not only
caused by sticks as stated by the codefendants

Gregorio Bundoc (only one who appealed) is sentenced to the penalty of 6 years and 1 day of
prision mayor, including accessories, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000
jointly or severally with his co-defendants and to pay 1/3 of the cost sof both instances.